# What is art? I mean, really? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068 "2003-07-22T01:57:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MrThompson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MrThompson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrThompson)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/41 "2003-07-22T21:01:14Z")
> [@](#): > > And thus you throw off all definitions of art and go with what you like, and we come full circle. Can you explain further, because I’m not quite getting you - my main point is that I don’t believe in art. I perhaps confused the issue by adding a sidepoint about what certainly is not. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/42 "2003-07-22T21:51:10Z")
I knew I could rely on my fellow Dopers! This has definitely been an interesting discussion. The thing I find, I guess the word is discouraging, is when I don’t “get” a piece of art and that I’m told that I’m somehow not intelligent enough to appreciate it. I relate it to comedy: if you have to explain it, it’s not funny anymore. Just ask any Monty Python fan who encounters a non-fan. You either get it or you don’t. No crime there. No need to worry. From what I’ve been reading here pretty much follows my OP: I don’t know art but I know what I like. I may not “get” _Piss Christ_ or what the artist had in mind, but I can’t fault him(?) for that. I am apparently not in the target audience for such works. Joel Hodgson once said of writing jokes for MST3K that they wrote and that the right people would get the jokes. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/43 "2003-07-22T22:38:41Z")
Art, read fine art as opposed to practical art, is essentially a matter of taste. The taste that counts is the taste of the elite that dictate what is tasteful and worth while and what is not. To some extent **Inquisitiveidiot** ’s somewhat cynical analysis is correct. The real problem is getting the opinion forming elite, for the most part Los Angeles and New York gallery owners, to pronounce a particular piece of work to be art. Of course it helps to be an egomaniac with a big mouth and brass balls and a somewhat bizarre life style. Look at what we generally accept as good art today and compare it to what was regarded as good art in the past. When the Impressionists and Post-impressionists were being pilloried as an affront to accomplished taste, the rage was the Frenchman who did the Napoleon marching through the snow painting (Messerier—or something spelled almost, but not quite, like that) and the Englishman who did painting of stags at bay and hunting dogs (Landsier, or something like that) Today you only find their work in history books and insurance company advertisements while the Impressionists and the Post-impressionists are elevated to a nearly God like height. It is a matter of changing taste and the dictates of the elite. The French guy and the English guy were both accomplished painters and some of their sketches still have considerable appeal. When he was working Norman Rockwell was the butt of every joke the elite could dig up, but now he is beginning to be recognized as a considerable light in the artist racket. Times change. Tastes change. Elites change. The secret for the aspiring artist is either to do the stuff you want to do and hope the elite accepts it as good stuff or try to figure out in advance what the elite will accept as good stuff and then do that. The third alternative is to go get a teaching certificate and lead a life of sullen acceptance that you are bound for the dust bin of art history along with 0.99999999996% of the people who try to do the stuff. Remember, fewer people make a living at creative fine visual art than make a living playing professional football. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/44 "2003-07-23T02:23:51Z")
Think, momentarily, of the task of defining “the good”. It is in some sense more than “what you like”, but the problem is that no one possesses the intrinsic authority to tell you that you like the wrong things. Unless you’re a seriously committed poststructuralist, you believe that there really is a “good”, that quality exists whether we perceive it or not, and yet our perception remains the best tool for ascertaining when and whether or not it exists. Think also of “the skill”. At first glance it would appear that if you are good _at_ something, it should be easy to devise a measurement of that something in results-terms and thereby determine exactly how good you are at “it”. But that presupposes that there are a finite number of possible skills, that we know what they are and what they can do, and therefore that we possess the tools to assess them as people who embody them come along. Mostly that is not true. Skills sprawl across disciplines and conventional areas of employment and categories for which tests have been created. Even the skills assessed by the Standord-Binet IQ test are really a set of skills spilling this way and that way across the territory that the tests test for, including the skill of taking standardized tests. We have legitimate reasons for refusing to surrender our vocabulary to the assessments of possible definitions and tests, preferring our ambiguous “I know it when I see it”. 'tis a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/45 "2003-07-23T05:30:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > The definition of art that I am most comfortable with (and it is a rather cynical one, I must admit) is that art would be distinguished from trash if you abandoned it in an alleyway. > > If (nobody had ever seen it before and) you left John Martin’s [Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion](http://artyzm.com/world/m/martin/sadak.htm) leaning against a wall in a sidestreet, there’s a pretty good chance that someone finding it would move it to a place where it would not be damaged. > > If (nobody had ever seen it before and) you left Tracy Ermin’s [My Bed](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/485270.stm) in a sidestreet, there’s a pretty good chance someone finding it would simply get the local authorities take it to the landfill. > > Furthermore, if I need to be _told_ what to feel when viewing a work of (so called) art, then it has failed - if I need to read a wall plaque or brochure stating “IKB 79 by Yves Klein (a plain, uniform blue canvas square) encapsulates a synthesis of our material reality with the”, I am inclined to run from the building, crying “the Emperor is naked!”. > > Maybe that’s just me though. Great post, **Mangetout**! I especially like your “sidestreet” analogy. That Ermin was able to sell a rumpled bed, replete with empty liquor bottles, soiled underwear and condoms for a trifling **$225,000** speaks volumes about “modern art” (an oxymoron if ever there was one). For those interested in a smashing sendup of modern art and its current role in our society, I direct you to one of my first threads at these boards, [Pissing as Performance Art](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38638). Two “guerilla artists” entered the Tate Gallery and urinated into Marcel Duchamp’s piece titled, “urinal.” Even better, they also painted their nude bodies with anti-capitalistic slogans and proceded to have a pillow fight on Ermin’s “My Bed.” This is so ironically appropriate (and perhaps the best use of this piece yet), that I am nearly reduced to helpless laughter. **Gaudere** acquits herself in fine fettle while discussing art and its definitions in the “Urinal” thread, so I heartily advise everyone to give it a shot (as it were). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/46 "2003-07-23T13:04:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrThompson \* > \*\*Can you explain further, because I’m not quite getting you - my main point is that I don’t believe in art. I perhaps confused the issue by adding a sidepoint about what certainly is not. \*\* Well, by expressing disdain for the pretentious nature of so-called art, I figured you had just fallen back on the “I don’t know art, but I know what I like” premise quoted in the OP. And if the thread had ended at that point, my pretentious “full circle” reference would have made more sense. Ah, quel domage. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/47 "2003-07-23T15:30:00Z")
I’ve always wondered about the time the K Foundation burnt £1 million in the name of art. [This site](http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/drummb/kburn.htm) gives an explanation of it for those not familiar. They burnt a million and filmed it then went on tour with the film. After showing the film they invited questions from the audience. They weren’t even sure whether it was art themselves. Personally I think it was, in fact it is possibly the ultimate piece of art. But it took me a while to come round to this way of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/48 "2003-07-23T15:51:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*Great post, **Mangetout**! I especially like your “sidestreet” analogy. \*\* I have to confess that, although it represents my honest opinion on the matter, the sidestreet analogy is not entirely original to me (although I can’t remember where I heard the idea I based it on). The last bit (about art having failed if it needs too much accompanying blurb) is entirely mine (as far as I know). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/49 "2003-07-23T19:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Two “guerilla artists” entered the Tate Gallery and urinated into Marcel Duchamp’s piece titled, “urinal.” Even better, they also painted their nude bodies with anti-capitalistic slogans and proceded to have a pillow fight on Ermin’s “My Bed.” I love this. It’s only Art when **I’m** having **you** on. When someone else does it to me, it is a terrible affront. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068/50 "2003-07-23T22:53:02Z")
Well, I do think what they did is art (dunno about “Art”, it’s not a term I bother to give any weight to). However, it is illegal and just plain rude to mess with someone else’s property when you go do it. Also, Duchamp’s piece is called “Fountain”, though it is, in fact, a urinal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-art-i-mean-really/190068.md?page=2)